Allowed

Sumit Shakya v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Nov 2022ABAIL/11416/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. The court relied on the principle established in Sushila Aggarwal while noting the case involved family discord and false implication. Bail was granted subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed subject to personal bond with two sureties and standard conditions regarding appearance, tampering, and leaving India.

Sumit Shakya Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11416 of 2022 Applicant :- Sumit Shakya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hitesh Pachori Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Hitesh Pachori, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.P. Patel, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶4

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0458 of 2022, under Sections 420, 506, 501, 386 IPC and Section 67 of Information of Technology (Amendment) Act, Police Station Kotwali Chibramau, District Kannauj, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶5

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have taken some photographs of the informant in a function and is stated to have made them viral on social media. It has also been alleged in the FIR that the applicant is stated to have demanded a ransom for it.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is the brother-in-law of the daughter of the informant. He himself had filed a complaint case bearing no. 13687 of 2021 on 01.04.2021 against the informant and her family members and they have been summoned by the court concerned vide order dated 3.8.2022. Learned counsel has also stated that the present FIR has been lodged on 7.8.2022 as a counterblast to the said summoning order. Learned counsel has further stated that admittedly, the matter is of family discord. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶7

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and

¶8

also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶9

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of " Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98 ", the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶10

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may be adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶11

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Sumit Shakya involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶12

that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶13

that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶14

that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

¶15

that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶16

that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶17

that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶19

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶20

Order Date :- 24.11.2022/Siddhant

¶21

Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SAHU Date: 2022.11.26 12:54:41 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sumit Shakya v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit Shakya v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nand Lal Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Rashmi Rawat (Advocate) Vs State of U.P.

Mohit @ Anuj and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gulfam Vs State of U.P.

Rajni Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pappu Sonkar @ Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others